What's the right way for UK Muslims to persuade extremists to stop being extremists?

format_quote Originally Posted by cooterhein

Police arrested a 52-year-old former psychiatric patient

Exactly. When it goes to those haters, they always have mental problems. When it goes to Muslims, they always are terrorists because of the religion.

(This is not answer to your post, just a common notice how the media creates the image of this problem of hate and extremism. As well as a guy who made his attack in Nice, had also mental problems as like a guy in Munich. But does media remember this on their headlines...)

What comes to the case of Jo Cox, that was well said: "How dare she not put Britain first!"

We all should to be so brave that not put "I" or "WE" the first. Maybe we then could find the mutual ways to beat the extremism of the both side - together.

if you can come up with an answer to what I'm actually asking for in this thread

I answered to this in my earlier post (post 39). We all can start to make work for it and together it´s far easier than alone. Muslims in the UK and everywhere can start now to demand the new world order and work for it. But as I also wrote, I realize it´s not easy at all.

Still, as I believe, it´s the only way to beat the extremism. Other ways and methods are only some kind of makeup and ways not to solve the basic problems.

The extremists transgress, and in order to help them, we need to show them what Islam is. But, we can not trust disbelievers in that.

It is best to go back to the Quran and to The Sunnah, and show them.

I also feel it is important for the Muslim youth to know about Jihad, war self-defense and Shariah.

we see Islamophobes talking about Islam and seen as "experts" when they have not even read or opened the Quran, nor have they had a face to face conversation with a Muslim about Islam, in depth.

There are two extremes, one: The one who kills and are like the Kharawij (Idk how to spell that)

And there is the other: pleasing disbelievers at the expense of one's deen.

Primary goal should be to please Allah, and have a face to face talk with the extremists. On the basis of Quran and Sunnah.

Islamophobes should NOT have the right to spread misleading information or distorted information about Islam where Islam says to kill all non muslims to breakfast.

Free speech should not be an excuse or a right to be able to talk lies or spread misinformation.

More islamic education to the schools maybe? And same also to non-Muslims that they would learn to separate the truth from the false "news".

Much better to repent to God and obey God than to continue to be crooked and debauched and try to lamely face God off in chess no?

format_quote Originally Posted by sister herb

More islamic education to the schools maybe? And same also to non-Muslims that they would learn to separate the truth from the false "news".

Yeah. we need people to know what is Islam and what is not Islam. you do not judge a car or a knife by the driver or the one holding the knife, do you?

Ignorance is no excuse in this day and age. And this freedom of speech is taking it too far, there SHOULD be limitations.

The right to criticize, should be there, but within bounds. I.e. not being deregatory or unreasonable, or a propagantist.

Cartooners should NOT be allowed to make paintings that is intended to ridicule an entire religion. It should be seen as a criminal offense, tbh.

telling lies, making propaganda, making those filthy cartoons, should all be banned. And should be treated as offensive.

The indoctrination of gay being normal should be banned too. Just because it feels right, doesn't make it right. That is just delusional.

Same can be said with criminals who rape people - it feels good and they derive pleasure from raping, does it make it right, although it may feel good? This is psychopathic.

And this failed quote of "as long as it doesnt hurt others" is hurting whole society as a whole - in the long run. To say "as long as it doesnt hurt others" is short-sighted, and an intellectually weak arguement. Because people do hurt themselves and their relatives/ wife/children/family.

An immoral act can not be justified with "as long as it doesn't hurt others".

And Allah knows best.

Banning a very very very mild dude like zakir naik from visiting the uknotted kingdom just because he tones it down but doesn't work for mi5 doesn't help at all.
and then setting his local puppets on him when people start wondering how the rest of the world tolerate and even revere him is also a lame tactic.
He also appears to be practicing self censorship on a number of issues, because when an intelligent person speaks straight to a people who can bear his words, he'll tell you that it's necessary for all people to submit to God and walk straight in order to achieve lasting peace.
you enforce servitude to God thus servitude to humans, mud, monarchs and flags disappears, you enforce Islam and jizya disappears, easy innit? You obey Allah together and the sword disappears.


If the fools in the british government called him an extremist, God knows what they must be thinking of the common Muslims who speak the truth plainly without concern for the perception of the deluded masses

(In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

format_quote Originally Posted by cooterhein

There are certain people and a certain organization in the UK that (from what I've been told here) don't have grassroots support from UK Muslims on the whole. They do have support from the UK government, but it's not getting much traction from the broader Muslim community, specifically most of the people on this forum.

The reason Quilliam Foundation doesn't have grassroots support from U.K. Muslims as a whole (a) because the founders weren't ever engaged with the mainstream Muslim community, (b) seen as misrepresenting Islam and Muslims, and (c) were seen as creating a deliberately hostile environment for mainstream Muslims and fear-mongering about extremism. Moreover, the founders of the Quilliam Foundation were defects of Hizb ul-Tahrir group, which had not enjoyed popular support from U.K. Muslims because the organization was seen as cliquish and its membership in U.K. was never high. Also, the political extremism which Maajid Nawaz laid claim and said to have defected from, even when considered true (though his story has been debunked in Muslim community), can only said to represent himself and not the mainstream community. Also, I have heard Maajid Nawaz on Fox News, and I can honestly say that much of what he says is no doubt an appeasement of baseless fears that Islam is there to terrorize non-Muslims, which is why I myself have never liked him. I can honestly say from my observation and discussion in different Muslim sites over the years of which U.K. members had been over-represented in the Internet community, that U.K. Muslims have not liked Maajid Nawaz for the reason that he seems to have acquired monies from the government for what he calls counter-extremism but is seen as a counter-productive disaster within the Muslim community in the U.K.

Question one. On several occasions, I have seen the term "government stooge" repeatedly used, along with statements to the effect that some Muslims just repeat what the UK government wants them to say about extremism. Please read this question carefully and actually answer it, because this is the thing that I need an answer to. What exactly is the UK government saying about extremism, and what exactly is wrong with it?

The U.K. government recently had established the PREVENT strategy in implementation of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill in 2015 and enforced it on schools in an attempt to prevent children and teenagers from being drawn into terrorism. However, the Muslim community felt the disproportionate impact of the bill with their school children, and it was also not an effective gauge of radicalization. For further understanding, please read "The mental trauma caused by Prevent on Muslim children." Also, the government had failed to engage the Muslim community in trying to understand what would or would not constitute radicalization in a young adult.

Also, the problem in regards to what the U.K. government is saying about extremism is that extremism is not mainstream and should not be made to feel that it is mainstream either to the Muslim or non-Muslim communities. Otherwise, it would be buying into the "negative press" (pun intended) that for example an article showed, "In one example, the then Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, commissioned a report in November 2007 that found that in one particular week in 2006, over 90 per cent of UK media articles that referred to Islam and Muslims were negative."

Question two. Suppose a Muslim used to be an extremist, but now he's not, and what he now does is convince other people to take the same path of leaving extremism. If this were done in a forum-approved, truly grassroots manner, what would that look like? What would be the primary arguments against extremism, and in the end, would the newly-minted non-extremist seek to protect the lives of apostates, gay people, offensive cartoonists, Salman Rushdie, etc.?

If a person is an extremist and now he's not, his best bet is to become a model Muslim and engage the Muslim community from within. Moreover, "counter-extremism" (though that is not what these lectures is called within the Muslim community) is already being done in part by U.K. Muslim scholars who had been warning people against joining Daesh when early reports showed beheading of journalists, the burning of the Jordanian pilot, and the like. Moreover, according to M15, the more religious-minded a Muslim is, the less likely he/she is to be radicalized. CIA, FBI, MI5 all agree that religion plays a fringe role in radicalization; rather, issues of identity, isolation, angst, political anger plays the main role in radicalization. And I can say this is true also from my own experience; for example, when I was on another Muslim site, a U.K. national and 16-year old teenager basically said that his life was utterly crappy and he didn't feel like he had any meaning or purpose and he asked the Muslims on the site if he should join Daesh as he as was also feeling suicidal. Since this is a site that was at that time run with some Daesh fanboys, some of these Internet Daesh enthusiast openly encouraged him to leave the U.K. and join Daesh. I, however, and many others encouraged him not to do so.

The primary arguments against extremism lays in Quran and Sunnah itself. However, if you really want to know what arguments can be used against extremists or terrorists, I'd say that your best bet is to read this 512-page treatise that is also a fatwa (ruling) called Fatwa on Terrorism and Suicide Bombings that really reads like a book.

The lives of apostates, gays, offensive cartoonists, Salman Rushdie, etc. are already protected when Muslims agree to live in non-Muslim lands. Shariah (Islamic law) can only be implemented on Muslims living in a Muslim land that is run by a legitimate Muslim khalifa (leader) accepted by the Muslim ummah (nation); the last Khalifat (Caliphate) that existed in the Muslim world was the Ottoman Caliphate. For example, read the fatwa (ruling) How to React When People Disrespect Islam. In the fatwa (ruling), the following is said clearly and the part about which you will care most is, "In the absence of Muslim political & juridical authorities, one cannot impose penalties on those who insult Islam. As citizens of Western countries, Muslims should be especially aware of free-speech laws and their implications." However, as should be obvious, Muslims who choose not to follow the fatwa (ruling) are doing so under the color of their own perception and regard for their own views over the views of traditional scholars.

Question three. As far as you're able to tell, is there any sort of proper grassroots desire among UK Muslims to get extremists to stop being extremists? If that's not the case, what do the grassroots want instead of that?

I think even on IB, you are seeing this as a Muslim board; I can honestly say that besides two members who I had seen actively defend Daesh when I'd come onto IB, I have not seen any promotion of any radicalized ideology ever. Not only that, not only me, but other Muslim members had been actively debating these two members in the Paris Attacks thread. Also, while I don't live in the U.K., I can honestly say that mainstream Muslims of any place in the globe do have a grassroots desire to end radicalization and extremism. However, the fact of the matter is that the people who should be paying attention to this desire are the extremists and radicalized individuals, but they don't because they believe mainstream Muslims are not all that "Muslim" and they are the only right Muslims in the world. Once anyone has had a maggot enter the head that they're the only ones right and everyone else is wrong, it is hard to convince them that they're being tribal and ignorant; I think the cure to such individuals' (a) hard-hardheadedness and (b) hard-heartedness lays in (1) counseling and (2) acquisition of knowledge and (3) finally prayers that God opens their heart to guidance.

format_quote Originally Posted by Search

(In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)



The reason Quilliam Foundation doesn't have grassroots support from U.K. Muslims as a whole (a) because the founders weren't ever engaged with the mainstream Muslim community, (b) seen as misrepresenting Islam and Muslims, and (c) were seen as creating a deliberately hostile environment for mainstream Muslims and fear-mongering about extremism. Moreover, the founders of the Quilliam Foundation were defects of Hizb ul-Tahrir group, which had not enjoyed popular support from U.K. Muslims because the organization was seen as cliquish and its membership in U.K. was never high. Also, the political extremism which Maajid Nawaz laid claim and said to have defected from, even when considered true (though his story has been debunked in Muslim community), can only said to represent himself and not the mainstream community. Also, I have heard Maajid Nawaz on Fox News, and I can honestly say that much of what he says is no doubt an appeasement of baseless fears that Islam is there to terrorize non-Muslims, which is why I myself have never liked him. I can honestly say from my observation and discussion in different Muslim sites over the years of which U.K. members had been over-represented in the Internet community, that U.K. Muslims have not liked Maajid Nawaz for the reason that he seems to have acquired monies from the government for what he calls counter-extremism but is seen as a counter-productive disaster within the Muslim community in the U.K.


The U.K. government recently had established the PREVENT strategy in implementation of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill in 2015 and enforced it on schools in an attempt to prevent children and teenagers from being drawn into terrorism. However, the Muslim community felt the disproportionate impact of the bill with their school children, and it was also not an effective gauge of radicalization. For further understanding, please read "The mental trauma caused by Prevent on Muslim children." Also, the government had failed to engage the Muslim community in trying to understand what would or would not constitute radicalization in a young adult.


If a person is an extremist and now he's not, his best bet is to become a model Muslim and engage the Muslim community from within. Moreover, "counter-extremism" (though that is not what these lectures is called within the Muslim community) is already being done in part by U.K. Muslim scholars who had been warning people against joining Daesh when early reports showed beheading of journalists, the burning of the Jordanian pilot, and the like. Moreover, according to M15, the more religious-minded a Muslim is, the less likely he/she is to be radicalized. CIA, FBI, MI5 all agree that religion plays a fringe role in radicalization; rather, issues of identity, isolation, angst, political anger plays the main role in radicalization. And I can say this is true also from my own experience; for example, when I was on another Muslim site, a U.K. national and 16-year old teenager basically said that his life was utterly crappy and he didn't feel like he had any meaning or purpose and he asked the Muslims on the site if he should join Daesh as he as was also feeling suicidal. Since this is a site that was at that time run with some Daesh fanboys, some of these Internet Daesh enthusiast openly encouraged him to leave the U.K. and join Daesh. I, however, and many others encouraged him not to do so.

The primary arguments against extremism lays in Quran and Sunnah itself. However, if you really want to know what arguments can be used against extremists or terrorists, I'd say that your best bet is to read this 512-page treatise that is also a fatwa (ruling) called Fatwa on Terrorism and Suicide Bombings that really reads like a book.

The lives of apostates, gays, offensive cartoonists, Salman Rushdie, etc. are already protected when Muslims agree to live in non-Muslim lands. Shariah (Islamic law) can only be implemented on Muslims living in a Muslim land that is run by a legitimate Muslim khalifa (leader) accepted by the Muslim ummah (nation); the last Khalifat (Caliphate) that existed in the Muslim world was the Ottoman Caliphate. For example, read the fatwa (ruling) How to React When People Disrespect Islam. In the fatwa (ruling), the following is said clearly and the part about which you will care most is, "In the absence of Muslim political & juridical authorities, one cannot impose penalties on those who insult Islam. As citizens of Western countries, Muslims should be especially aware of free-speech laws and their implications." However, as should be obvious, Muslims who choose not to follow the fatwa (ruling) are doing so under the color of their own perception and regard for their own views over the views of traditional scholars.


I think even on IB, you are seeing this as a Muslim board; I can honestly say that besides two members who I had seen actively defend Daesh when I'd come onto IB, I have not seen any promotion of any radicalized ideology ever. Not only that, not only me, but other Muslim members had been actively debating these two members in the Paris Attacks thread. Also, while I don't live in the U.K., I can honestly say that mainstream Muslims of any place in the globe do have a grassroots desire to end radicalization and extremism. However, the fact of the matter is that the people who should be paying attention to this desire are the extremists and radicalized individuals, but they don't because they believe mainstream Muslims are not all that "Muslim" and they are the only right Muslims in the world. Once anyone has had a maggot enter the head that they're the only ones right and everyone else is wrong, it is hard to convince them that they're being tribal and ignorant; I think the cure to such individuals' (a) hard-hardheadedness and (b) hard-heartedness lays in (1) counseling and (2) acquisition of knowledge and (3) finally prayers that God opens their heart to guidance.

Honest question: How did the Islamic State in the past expand territory? What about hostile disbelievers who impede expansion?

What if the West set down laws that explicitly goes against Islamic Law? Is it permissible to stay there and to what extent?

Where is the line of oppression? I.e. when does it become obligatory to do Hijrah? And in doing so what indicates that?

I read a hadith saying that The Prophet :saw: Will disown any Muslim who settles amongst the disbelievers. What does the Prophet :saw: mean?

And how does an Islamic State expand?

I just clicked on "read post" under "this person is on your ignore list" and was amused by the new method being used lol, immediately reminded me of the following verse:


وَقَالَت طَّآئِفَةٌ مِّنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ آمِنُواْ بِالَّذِيَ أُنزِلَ عَلَى الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ وَجْهَ النَّهَارِ وَاكْفُرُواْ آخِرَهُ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَرْجِعُونَ

{72003:072*Khan:

And a party of the people of the Scripture say: "Believe in the morning in that which is revealed to the believers (Muslims), and reject it at the end of the day, so that they may turn back.

وَقَالَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا لَا تَسْمَعُوا لِهَذَا الْقُرْآنِ وَالْغَوْا فِيهِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَغْلِبُونَ
And this:

{26*041:026*Khan:

And those who disbelieve say: "Listen not to this Qur'an, and make noise in the midst of its (recitation) that you may overcome."

فَلَنُذِيقَنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا عَذَابًا شَدِيدًا وَلَنَجْزِيَنَّهُمْ أَسْوَأَ الَّذِي كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ

{27*041:027*Khan:
But surely, We shall cause those who disbelieve to taste a severe torment, and certainly, We shall requite them the worst of what they used to do.


What's more interesting however is when they claim to be Muslim whilst telling Muslims how it shouldn't be done when there's no legitimate khilafah, whilst ignoring the causes that are sabotaging genuine efforts to establish genuine khilaafah upon which the Muslims would unite and throw off the shackles of colonialism, puppet regimes, injustice and humiliation - and the same naysayers - rather than working to establish genuine khilaafah are focusing their efforts on inducing complacency under injustice and kufr.

Where's the positivity in such a sly approach when you look at the situation with wider lenses and think clearly?

It is more fitting that such "we are peacemakers" claimants focus their efforts on telling the criminals in their own leadership and their puppetmasters that they have no authority to legislate, penalise, or wage war, unless and until they make a genuine effort to comply with the laws of God and establish khilaafah upon the path of prophethood in submission to God, and refrain from staging false flag attacks and corrupt regimes, and refrain from sabotaging genuine efforts at establishing genuine khilaafah, because the people who do leave and go out and work in Allah's way without harassing you may decide that it's futile until they've dealt with the saboteurs and puppeteers or at least retaliated in coin with Allah's assistance and/or succeeded in drawing the wrath of Allah upon the unjust kuffar corrupters.

Assalamu alaykum,

Just wanted to say, I understand there is a problem with Islamic extremism among the Muslim youth (just saying, I've never met any Muslim teenager with extreme views personally) but I don't like the way the UK government is placing all of the blame and responsibility on us, singling us out as a community which needs straightening out.

I'm a Muslim teenager, for me the more I learnt about Islam the more I realised how terrorism or even extremism has no place in it - so the most effective strategy would be to educate both Muslims and non-Muslims about Islam from authentic sources, both these groups no little about this religion.

I've grown up in Britain, I've never doubted how British I am. And I'm a practising Muslim. Most of the time, I don't see any conflict between the two - although I obey Allah swt first and foremost. So far, and I'm grateful for this, I haven't had to break any state laws to practise my religion. But my identity as a Muslim comes first - humans aren't infallible, even the rulers of a state *gasp* can be wrong, Allah swt has laws for all times and places which, if practised properly, would make a perfect functional society where everyone received their due rights.

But I do sometimes feel singled out or scrutinised by others. I cannot leave the house without being stared at or shouted out. Just last week me and my friend were walking outside and this man told us to get lost from the UK or jump off a cliff. I can't count the numers of times I've been told I don't belong here, I'm not welcome here...and that used to really upset me when I was younger. And government policies which single us out aren't going to help either. It's just not nice. Young Muslims are growing up in an environment where we're viewed with a lot of suspicion.

And using this point, I don't hate England or its people. The same way Islamic extremists just represent a tiny (if very loud) proportion of Muslims, I am confident those Islamophobes I come across are also a small (but vocal) proportion of British people.

format_quote Originally Posted by cooterhein

There are some Catholics and perhaps some Orthodox Christians who would agree that I am indeed a heretic,

When your own camp considers you as such, what kudos can you possibly hope to garner here? Do consider, how you've repeatedly butchered the intended meaning of members posts and interpolated your own wayward and deviant opinions derived from your politically incorrect and fundamentally inflexible mind...

...what you will quickly realise is that the members of this board, are humouring you.

Scimi

1.*Ya Sin.
2.*By the Qur'an, full of Wisdom,
3.*Thou art indeed one of the messengers,
4.*On a Straight Way.
5.*It is a Revelation sent down by (Him), the Exalted in Might, Most Merciful.
6.*In order that thou mayest admonish a people, whose fathers had received no admonition, and who therefore remain heedless (of the Signs of Allah..
7.*The Word is proved true against the greater part of them: for they do not believe.
8.*We have put yokes round their necks right up to their chins, so that their heads are forced up (and they cannot see).
9.*And We have put a bar in front of them and a bar behind them, and further, We have covered them up; so that they cannot see.
10.*The same is it to them whether thou admonish them or thou do not admonish them: they will not believe.
11.*Thou canst but admonish such a one as follows the Message and fears the (Lord) Most Gracious, unseen: give such a one, therefore, good tidings, of Forgiveness and a Reward most generous.
12.*Verily We shall give life to the dead, and We record that which they send before and that which they leave behind, and of all things have We taken account in a clear Book (of evidence).

13.*Set forth to them, by way of a parable, the (story of) the Companions of the City. Behold!, there came messengers to it.
14.*When We (first) sent to them two messengers they rejected them: But We strengthened them with a third: they said, "Truly, we have been sent on a mission to you."
15.*The (people) said: "Ye are only men like ourselves; and ((Allah)) Most Gracious sends no sort of revelation: ye do nothing but lie."
16.*They said: "Our Lord doth know that we have been sent on a mission to you:
17.*"And our duty is only to proclaim the clear Message."
18.*The (people) said: "for us, we augur an evil omen from you: if ye desist not, we will certainly stone you. And a grievous punishment indeed will be inflicted on you by us."
19.*They said: "Your evil omens are with yourselves: (deem ye this an evil omen). If ye are admonished? Nay, but ye are a people transgressing all bounds!"
20.*Then there came running, from the farthest part of the City, a man, saying, "O my people! Obey the messengers,
21.*"Obey those who ask no reward of you (for themselves), and who have themselves received Guidance.
22.*"It would not be reasonable in me if I did not serve Him Who created me, and to Whom ye shall (all) be brought back.
23.*"Shall I take (other) gods besides Him? If ((Allah)) Most Gracious should intend some adversity for me, of no use whatever will be their intercession for me, nor can they deliver me.
24.*"I would indeed, if I were to do so, be in manifest Error.
25.*"For me, I have faith in the Lord of you (all): listen, then, to me!"
26.*It was said: "Enter thou the Garden." He said: "Ah me! Would that my People knew (what I know)!
27.*"For that my Lord has granted me Forgiveness and has enrolled me among those held in honour!"
28.*And We sent not down against his People, after him, any hosts from heaven, nor was it needful for Us so to do.
29.*It was no more than a single mighty Blast, and behold! they were (like ashes) quenched and silent.
30.*Ah! Alas for (My) Servants! There comes not an apostle to them but they mock him!
31.*See they not how many generations before them we destroyed? Not to them will they return:
32.*But each one of them all - will be brought before Us (for judgment).



When the wolf cries out: "he's an extremist" (actually meaning, he's a Muslim, i.e, someone who obeys God, stands up for justice according to God's measuring yard, and is prepared to retaliate equally to injustice if it become's necessary to check injustuce), and another cries out, no no, don't worry, he's just one of the bad apples amongst us, because we're just like you in our projected matrix of liberalism.....another can see the discussion being skewed and false stereotypes being projected and repeated.
what's it gonna be next?
"He's a Muslim"
"Oh no no, he's not a Muslim, he's a'ight, he's just defending the right of the Muslims to obey God in other lands, that's not illegal.
well, i guess that not everyone lives in or next to burma.....or noticed obama's relationships and financial incentives cemented after the atrocities commited there. But hey, believe it if you want, they don't believe in karma, they believe in obama!

format_quote Originally Posted by Search

(In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

(Peace be upon you)



I agree with that. However, I wanted to revisit your post to clarify some things which I found troubling God-willing.


Any type of premarital intercourse is haram (forbidden) in Islam. The reason we'd protect the rights of gays and lesbians is because they're sinners but we're sinners too and we do not have a right to judge their sins. In Islam, we're all considered to be sinning differently (degrees might be different in less or more). Please see my former post "Hate the sin, not the sinner" with proof of how this is an Islamic attitude. Even within a state that follows the shariah (Islamic law), the Muslim presumed to be engaging in homosexuality through sodomy, would require four witnesses to testify that they have seen the offence, or else, a clear and confirmed confession given out of free will from the perpetrators. And if the accuser fails to produce apart from himself other three witnesses to this offense, then that person will be given 80 lashes because he accused an innocent person and the person will never have their testimony accepted in a shari (Islamic legal) court ever thereafter.


First and foremost, in a legitimate Khilafat (Caliphate), there is no separation of religion and state as is seen in secular countries of today. Rather, it is a theocratic state, and therefore any person defecting as an apostate is also seen as committing treason. However, what's notable about this is that historically people of many different religions for many different reasons have apostatized such as unexpected death of a child, war, famine, pestilence. Therefore, what we have to understand is that apostasy in this context is not in reference to individuals who might have apostatized out of emotional reasons and do not present a clear and active threat to the state. Rather, apostates in the context of a shari (Islamic legal) state references specifically those who have been saying/participating in activities that denote his/her apostasy in a way that explicitly brings him to the attention of the state. Despite this, an apostate's apostasy may be excused, which is why this needs clear verification first and foremost. Things which excuse apostasy are "ignorance, misunderstanding, being forced, and making mistakes" even according to IslamQA site. The site says, "The apostate is not to be put to death immediately after he falls into apostasy, especially if his apostasy happens because of some doubt that arose." Also, as you said, an apostate is asked to repent (which most sane persons under threat of death would do so, even if only to make an outward show of faith and be prevented from being put to death). The apostate is therefore offered the opportunity to return to Islam and resolve his doubts if he has any doubts. Then if he persists in his apostasy after that (which I doubt a person who likes his/her skin would), he is to be put to death after a proper trial.


In a state ruled by shariah (Islamic law), this matter would likely not arise because there would be clear types of speech that would be known to be illegal. However, in Western lands, specific types of speech are protected under the umbrella of "free speech" and as people who inhabit non-Muslim lands presumed to be under a contract to obey the laws of the nation under which one is residing, one is obliged to obey the law and not do anything that would constitute danger for others or himself/herself. Please read the fatwa (ruling): "How to React When People Disrespect Islam."

Also, personally, I stand on this issue in this way: If a two-year toddler who visits my home and pees on my bed, should I get angry? No. Why? Because this two-year toddler is ignorant. In that same way, I regard as Islam haters and insults to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). I see them as ignorant and prejudiced, and I do not get angry.

Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) told us not to get angry three times and told us that the stronger person is not one who is strong by virtue of physical strength but by virtue of emotional restraint.



If you don't protect those who insult your religion or who belittle you, how will you show them what is "Islamic character"? Contrary to media depictions, "Islamic character" doesn't comprise of becoming angry and insulted but showing peace and mercy. I personally believe that the best way to kill is kill with kindness. There are many instances of non-Muslim haters in the West who clearly and explicitly hated on and insulted Islam and Muslims, and many of them have converted and shared their stories of coming to Islam and having taken their shahada (testimony of faith).

A convert woman in the aftermath of 9/11 was hit by a non-Muslim man to the point where she was seriously injured and she thought about what she wanted to do when he was arrested. She thought and thought about this matter until she realized that the Islamic character of Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not allow her the opportunity to be retaliatory and so she asked for this man instead to be allowed to learn about Islam from a cultural center as part of his sentence and not be jailed. That man became a Muslim. Why? Because she was merciful.



If he's asking you to go against Islam, you must of course reject his words. If, however, you find that what he's saying is within the parameters of Islam and endorsed by Islam, you are to humble yourself enough to accept what he's saying.

(And peace be upon you)

Wa alaikum salam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh,

Where is the proof that we have to abide by their laws when it contradicts Shariah?

When I said protecting someone for being gay or doing satire with Islam, I meant as in protecting their right to do so - that I won't.

since we live in a land ruled by kufr laws, what do we do about the cartoonists? Killing them is out of the question, so what do we do? I find it hypocritical and disgusting how they use this freedom of speech excuse to further their hatred of Islam. I know playing into their games by being angry is just me playing into their games.

I understand that they have a right (AFAIK) to criticize Islam, but when they offend? I do get that just because one feels offended doesn't give them the right to use violence. But I don't see how it is acceptable for them to ridicule?

So I see it like this:

Since we live in the West, we are not allowed to be vigilant. So when ignorants come, do we just say peace? So in the absense of Muslim ruled country, the dynamic of what is permissible and impermissible changes?

So if one insults the Prophet :saw: what do I do?

If in a shariah state, someone insults the Prophet :saw: what do I do?

I am well aware of the character of the Prophet :saw: becoming more kind and gentle when people pettled him :saw:. So we do that in absense of shariah law?

I know we are not supposed to hunt down people for the sins they do - that is pathetic and shows one's low self-reflection and self-awareness.

But say people who openly say they are gay, in an Islamic State, would we implement punishment on them? If they were non muslims, would we? Now, afaik, we can not implement punishments on disbelievers, only believers, but to what an extent does it stretch? Isn't it our Job to rid evil?

And if the disbelievers openly promote something unIslamic, shouldn't we in an Islamic state denounce that? we can't simply have them corrupt the society.

What about if they wear indecent clothing? Aren't they corrupting society by doing so? Can we implement Law on them to dress Islamically? and if not, can we at least have them cover their awrah?

If a gay community in an Islamic State openly promotes sodomy, wouldn't be our obligation to stop that? To rid evil?

To what extent can we implement shariah Law? I am aware that some rules only apply on the Islamic State, when it is established. But say living in Shariah vs Kafir country.

Is there any change in the dynamic?

Double post

format_quote Originally Posted by Serinity

Wa alaikum salam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh,...

...Is there any change in the dynamic?

Shariah law exists in the United Kindgom, in a limited capacity. Near where I live there is a shariah court which deals with "births, deaths and marriages" for Muslims.

The tabloids got a wind of this and went paranoid lol, thinking shariah law is going to replace the law of the land this unfounded and baseless paranoia is unjustified and I am reminded of Khalid ib Waleed's (RA) last words on his death bed.

The eyes of the cowards, really do not sleep.

Scimi

format_quote Originally Posted by Scimitar

Shariah law exists in the United Kindgom, in a limited capacity. Near where I live there is a shariah court which deals with "births, deaths and marriages" for Muslims.

The tabloids got a wind of this and went paranoid lol, thinking shariah law is going to replace the law of the land this unfounded and baseless paranoia is unjustified and I am reminded of Khalid ib Waleed's (RA) last words on his death bed.

The eyes of the cowards, really do not sleep.

Scimi

Nice to know that. Way to make Marriages, deaths/burials/janazahs and births easier.

So when a Muslim dies in UK, what do we do of him?